In the past, Rick Warren has taken issue with the redefinition of marriage. He has said time and time again, “For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman… I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.” [1] The issue is that our current definition of marriage (that is the Western, Christian notion of the marriage institution in the U.S.) has not existed for 5,000 years, let alone existed across cultural or religious boundaries. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to cover every single ancient culture and religion, but we can understand marriage and family as it pertains to Christianity. We will also notice that despite Warren’s attempt to entice Christians to believe marriage is unchanging, marriage has changed by definition and practice throughout history.

5,000 years ago would take us back to Sumerian culture in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The Old Testament book of Genesis refers to Sumeria as the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10). There existed several forms of marriage and the family unit perhaps due to overpopulation, including celibate wives, marrying (much like our understanding of adopting) the bride’s brothers to form a family clan, bringing in slaves as part of the family unit, and even nuclear families. Families could be a fratriarchy where the eldest brother ruled the home. For the most part, marriage was a commercial arrangement though the groom also received payment or gifts for marrying. Unlike today, polygamy was possible up to two wives, wives were as young as 12 years of age, and grooms were well into their thirties since commonality and companionship was not as important. [2]

Though marriage was defined, as Warren suggests, “by a man and a woman” marriage and family in Sumeria was also defined by a man, a woman, her children, and her brothers; a man, a woman, and another woman; a man, a woman, their children, and their slaves, and so forth. There was absolutely no understanding of Western, Christian marriage between one man and one woman. Even if we took the time to investigate every culture and religion in history, our concept of marriage would come thousands of years later, after Christ’s death at the end of the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by 1950s television, film, and culture.

[1] Beliefnet Video, Accessed 5/19/2009
[2] Life in the ancient Near East, 3100-332 B.C.E., Daniel C. Snell, p. 51-54

In a series of post, I’ll be providing a brief history of sex and marriage exploring some of the myths in Christianity. Religion should not detach sexuality and marriage from it’s historical origins and monopolize relationships. Religion, specifically Christianity, has never had the upper hand on marriage or family despite that it would like nothing more than to believe it has. Statements like, “Marriage has always been one way,” “The role of the father is this and the role of the mother is that,” and “God has outlined what marriage is suppose to be” are all lacking serious history. I’m not certain the Church can offer much unless it realizes its own struggles with the issues and places these topics back into its historical context. Sexuality and marriage is not ahistorical though Christianity would often like to pretend it is for the sake of upholding homophobia in the church and Western, traditional family values – which are anything but authentically traditional.

The Church historically has struggled with sex and sexuality presenting at best an anti-sexual vision throughout history. For example, the early church went to such extremes to be sexually chaste that some severed their own genitals for the sake of Christ (e.g. Origen, Melito of Sardis) [1] [2]. Asceticism was so ingrained in the faith, that rogue penises and testes didn’t stand a chance against Christian belief and practice [3]. Men would go to extremes to prevent sexual sin until the First Council of Nicaea prohibited castration in the 4th Century [4], even more reason to cite the Nicene Creed.

Sexuality throughout the time of Jesus through the Medieval period was solely for the purpose of procreation for the sake of nationalism – citizens creating more citizens by sexual reproduction. Sex for any other reason both in or outside of marriage was considered sinful, specifically adulterous. In Rome, being married and having no children could also be considered adulterous. Homosexual, oral, anal, and masturbatory sex were all considered sodomy because they were unnatural, or unable to produce children to create a bigger society. Sexual sin always came down to reproduction to support economic and political nationalism even to the point of restricting all sexual positions except the most natural, what we now call the missionary position. Of course, all sex was to be performed within the confines of marriage be it by purchasing the bride, kidnapping the bride, or finding one who would consent or at least have her guardian’s consent. The early and medieval church also made no distinction between a male and female who lived together and who were consummating their relationship. These couples were considered married. What seemed to matter most was the national population. The marriage unit was looked to as the corner stone for building stronger nations, which places both Jesus and Paul’s statements on marriage and divorce in a different context than the traditional myth that marriage was all about love and devotion [5] [6]. This was not Jesus nor Paul’s cultural context. Here are some possible alternative meanings:

Matthew 19: When Jesus is questioned by the religious about divorce, many men divorced habitually to gain economic and political gain in society. With marriage and children came economic inheritances which was very advantageous for men. Adding to the growing definition of adultery, Jesus warns that divorcing for such gain and remarrying is adulterous or not holding to the original purpose of marriage [7]. Furthermore, I’m suggesting that Jesus’ view on marriage was concerned with a social injustice against women who weren’t able to survive unless married. It is unclear though if Jesus is referring to the original purpose for marriage (exemplified in Adam and Eve) as a relational commitment, procreation, or both. I’d suspect the former is where Christ places the emphasis accenting love, since the culture overemphasized marriage and children as a commodity in hope of climbing the political, social, and economic ladders which fueled divorce.

1 Corinthians 7: Paul in no way was trying to outline a theology for marriage, but simply answering a complex question by the Corinthian church and doing ethics. If we digest the counsel actually given by Paul, his primary objective seems to be in reminding the church what is most important given the immediate situation (i.e. the Lord’s quick return in their lifetimes), not a hard moral statement favoring certain expressions of marriage between male and female. Paul tries to balance the tension between several cultural realities, marriage for societal advantage, mixed faith marriages, and asceticism for spiritual gain. Pauline theology is filled with the theme of grace and his answers are no different here, “I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.” Only to marriage does he speak a command, reiterating what Christ said in Matthew except he focuses more so on women than on men. As we already addressed, for men divorce and remarriage came with advantages, but for women divorce created disadvantages and injustices. Paul follows Christ in encouraging and emphasizing commitment above any other type of personal gain [8].

The strict religious views on sexuality and marriage found the ending Medieval period and Catholic church in a heap of hypocrisy. Prostitution, concubines, divorce, and various sexual sin was rampant inside and outside of the church with clergy even visiting brothels and obtaining concubines [9]. The anti-sexual religious views on sexuality and marriage did little for sustaining a moral society, but in some ways fostered further societal immorality which threatened the very nationalism it was suppose to protect and nurture. In response, the Catholic church in the Middle Ages solidified marriage as something sacred, making matrimony a holy sacrament of the church for two consenting individuals at least 7 yrs in age [9] [10]. Sacred matrimony was intended to deter immorality along with harsh punishments, including death, for acting against what was sacred [11]. The Reformers thought much more needed to be done against sex and in support of marriage, providing a revised theology of sexuality and marriage, but not any less strict than their predecessors.

References
[1] NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine
[2] Virgins of God: the making of asceticism in late antiquity, Susanna Elm, p. 122-123
[3] Ibid.
[4] NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
[5] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[6] Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages, Richards, Jeffrey, p. 34
[7] Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, Patrick M. Chapman, Ph.D., p. 109
[8] NICNT: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee, p. 266-290
[9] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[10] The History of the European Family: Family life in early modern times, David I. Kertzer, Marzio Barbagli, p. 126
[11] Sex and Canon Law: Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, pp. 33-50

Contrary to popular Christian belief, it is not always so easy to determine what is sin, and what is not sin. Those who argue that the Bible is black and white on issues of sin neglect to take Scripture as something that is constantly in tension and not always in complete harmony with itself. This tension, for anyone who studies theology, is quickly realized and the Christian religion becomes a faith that includes a lot more gray.

This is not only true today but also in Paul the Apostles time, as he often gave his best answer to many “moral” issues of his time (Corinthians). Paul did not try to give concrete black and white answers, but understood the mystery apparent in faith and the cultural issues at hand allowing grace to be applied to the practice of Christianity. I will call that practice of grace “ethics,” but will get to that a little later. Additionally, the early church mindset was for Christ to make a speedy, at any given moment, return within their lifetime and not 2000+ years from then. Perhaps, if they would had had a different expectation their moral advice wouldn’t seem as temporal or fitting solely for that time. But was it intended to be in the first place or merely the moral outcome to be achieved in their specific situation – an applied ethic?

Even today, the Bible still does not answer all of our questions to moral issues. What the Christian should consider to be sin stems from understanding which Biblical mandates and directives are cultural, and knowing which one’s are timeless. The most religious of Christians will hold to the “letter of law” suggesting that every “do not” is a timeless description of sin for every culture and every generation to come. A fast, hard approach to sin which often gets praise from conservative Christians. The problem with this approach is creating an unpractical form of Christian religion bound by irrelevant laws (i.e. women with head coverings, etc.). It seems that every generation and culture has had the grace to determine what is morally right or wrong on these not-so-obvious moral issues within it’s society. I call this Social Ethics, specifically normative, applied and descriptive ethics on social issues.

Today in Christianity, applying Social Ethics is called soft, relativistic, and perceived as a weak approach to Scripture. The fear is if we can make moral decisions on not-so-obvious issues, where do we stop. Soon people will also make moral decisions about what’s obviously immoral. The reality is, we make decisions based on morals everyday so we are constantly doing ethics, even on obvious sin issues like murder. Morals become about ethics and ethics is always harder to practice because there is so much grey. Being ethical is the practice of morality afterall and it has never been acceptable to just know the moral answers, but to also understand the ethical implications.

Anyone who does this will find it that much harder to call, sin “sin” since understanding leaves those people in sympathy and empathy with other human beings striving to be as “right” as possible in often wrong situations.

NOTE: Definition of term: Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

I was engaging in a conversation with my sister and wife on how my Christian spirituality has “forced” me more into my humanness. The more I have attempted to be like Christ, the more I’ve discovered my humanness – the characteristics of who I am, the sympathies and frailties of my human existence, the inner strengths I would otherwise not know, dreams and passions I never thought would give me life, etc. Human desires I once called “evil” were in actuality just who I was made to be. I’m coming to believe, in part, that this is what Paul the Apostle may have meant when he wrote about being a “New Creation” in Christ. There would be no escaping of who the Christian is as a genuine human being, but an eye opening look at the deepest parts of our existence and experience – that in order to be “like-God” who was born into flesh and blood, we too would also have to become more “like man,” more human, fully human, and at that, more ordinarily human.